'Enemy of the people'

I respect your right to have your opinion of Trump. I just don't share it. I see him diminishing the office every time he shows his ignorance of process or astounding arrogance when humility would be so much better. I'm sure you won't agree, but the corruption is blatantly obvious to me - and many others. Of course, in time, we will all know - one way or the other. But to treat the presidency as a personal achievement undermines the respect the position deserves.

 

Trump is the enemy of the 1st Amendment

 

would that be an "Alternative Fact"

 

Did they revoke his press pass?

 

Have they tried to break into Acosta's home to attack him and his family?

 

How about saying there's rapists, drug dealers, and murderers in the caravans of people trying to escape those things.
Without a shred of proof. How many in those caravans have been murdered or raped?

 

Did they make death threats to Blasey Ford. She's still in hiding.
Face it, both sides have their nut cases. In the RW case, one of them is president.

 

Exactly. Reporting on the stupidity and lies isn't attacking the president. It's simply reporting his BS and truths about how horrible a human being he is.
The snowflakes just need to understand that.

 

Who made the death threats? Any arrests.
Have Ford, Swetnick et al been arrested for perjury yet?

 

I think he can safely say there are all of those among that many people. Especially if those are the kind of people that they are leaving to get away from. I think it's more correct than to say they're all just nice people wanting to flee for their life.

 

Really? It's why I asked how many have been raped and/or murdered in those caravans.
If they're there, then there would be instances already.
Or do you think they just want to do it to white people??

 

Why did Trump make a point - five separate times - today, to say that he didn't know Whitaker? Only a month ago, on Fox, he said, "I know Whitaker. He's a good guy". And the new Vox report talks about how many times Whitaker met with Trump and had phone conversations. Why would a man repeat - over and over again - that he didn't know someone who he, provably and obviously, did?

I don't want to be one of those nitpickers, but I do want to understand why things like this really don't matter to Trump supporters.

 

I think it might be hard to do with as many as there is. To say there are so many where they came from and being the reason they left, I would think the chances are good that some came with the crowd and waiting to do there dirty work here. . Like what are all those people going to do here if they break through? Few have cloths with them. How do they plan to eat, sleep? Where are they going to get their cloths?

 

When the majority party refused to investigate all leads and relevant parties, the question of credibility becomes one of personal opinion. And in this case credibility was dictated by one's partisan position. But the one that didn't see credibility in her testimony was the one that denied full investigation. They needed to run from the facts and the truth so they could "justify" a claim of non-credibility.

 

Federal prosecutors prepared a detailed 80-page indictment against Michael Cohen that outlined Trump's role in directing payments to women to keep quiet about alleged affairs, the Wall Street Journal reported Friday. The report adds new details to Cohen's comments in court when he pleaded guilty in August, in which he said the payments to the women were coordinated with Trump. Trump became an unindicted co-conspirator.

Trump is getting considerable heat due to the fact that his acting U.S. Attorney General Matt Whitaker was his "eyes and ears" inside the Department of Justice and it is feared that Whitaker will do a hatchet job on the Mueller investigation. Also, Whitaker's appointment is unconstitutional.

When asked by "Fox and Friends" about Whitaker in October, Trump had this to say. "I can tell you Matt Whitaker's a great guy. I mean, I know Matt Whitaker."

That was October. Now Trump says, “I don’t know Matt Whitaker. Matt Whitaker worked for Jeff Sessions, and he was always extremely highly thought of, and still is."

That is actually very funny. According to Trump, he appointed a man he didn't know as the chief law enforcement officer in the land.

That is typical Trump. When things turn sour, it always someone else's fault.

 

You have already explained it was too difficult for you. I accept that.

 

Most trump supporters recognize the downsides of Trumps personality and would love to see that change. I agree that would help Trump and be appreciated by most people.

Corruption- I've yet to see anything that tells me he is involved in anything corrupt, I have no doubt he plays hardball in many situations and people want to call that corrupt, but given the job and the nature of political game, that's a necessary capacity.

It would be nice if the standards the left tries to demand of the president were a bit more respected by the rest of us. For example the claims of lies and the outrage comes from- liars. There are no clean hands here; even private citizens are shown by psychology studies to be telling a number of lies every day, Most are harmless or done for privacy or with good intent- but if it's Trump, anything not precisely accurate is proof of bad character. If you can imagine the extent of information and detail in his position and the elastic nature of conditions, how would anybody be able to prevent someone seeking to label him a liar from finding something? It is the nature and purpose that matters. Intentional deception for purpose of gain is one thing; a mis-statement in a description of the size of a crowd at an event an event is simply irrelevant.

 

Two points.
One, the nature of the pointKnow personally, know of, and similar are common ways of knowing someone. We have respect and trust for people we have never met, because we know their reputation. Two- Does it matter? If there is not some devious element involved, some aspect of impropriety, then it's trying to make a case out of something on order to make a case; not to resolve or prevent a wrong.

I can't imagine how such a man maintains the extent of knowledge and information in his head at any one time that he obviously does, much of it data that is changing everyday- it is phenomenal; at least 20 times what an average person is managing at any one time, and most of it far more complex and important. Given that alone I can't imagine that anybody could always be accurate. Try and put yourself in that position and ask how you could do it.

 

that c
As has been said many times there were only 2 people in the room. You choose who you believe. The length of time gone by is a big problem. I thought she was very credible. I thought he was not. You can't tell me that you haven't seen guys like him coast thru life and nothing sticks to them. He's one of those self entitled pricks. Now, as far as the news coverage.....in my opinion, what I have already said was also said by the news (CNN) and the biggest take away was.....pick someone else. It wouldn't have a press repeat deal because there was no doubt that another conservative was going to go in. All this crap that Trump dishes out about his family and life being destroyed is total BS. The woman's life on the other hand.......

 

According to the testimony of Christine Ford herself, she could not recall a single relevant detail about the incident except for the name of Kavanaugh. She testified under oath that she could not recall the date of the incident, the year, the address in which it occurred, how she heard of the party, how she got to the party, how she got home from the party, or even the names of any of her friends who were supposedly at the party. She recalled absolutely nothing that would allow for an investigation to occur. Yet the news media claimed she was credible in her accusations.

It has nothing to do with partisan loyalty, as common sense is more than sufficient to demonstrate she was not credible.

 

No. Words mean something.

 

I would know if I knew someone or if I didn't. And the fact that he stated - five times - that he didn't know him is indicative of him already distancing himself in the event he is trouble.

 

So, you are counting grains of sand to prove it's a beach.

If you went to court against an aggressive lawyer, he would shred you on the witness stand. Even when you are not overloaded with life responsibilities, an average person can be wrong or about so many details you wouldn't believe it. Even made to appear malicious. A person who is "sure", or over confident..... is the easiest game for them to skin alive.
The old legal question for example- Have you quit beating your wife? They don't ask questions quite that obviously, but they can and will make you appear to be a liar, with ease.

However, the other side of this is- So what? It apparently makes little difference in the functionality of things; it only serves as a way for the left to claim that there is a lie- and most of those running the show are either lawyers or have lawyers on hand advising them.

 

My original post was to ask why he asserted - so many times - that he didn't know him...when he obviously did? I happen to think that is very telling - and you don't. We disagree.

 

"As has been said many times there were only 2 people in the room."

Link?

I'm pretty sure that she testified that there were three people in the room.

I'm also pretty sure that she testified to there having been some vague number of people at the party. Five were named by her, yet only she claimed to have any recollection of the party.

"He's one of those self entitled pricks."

This is an interesting comment.

I can't help but wonder at the motivation(s) for making such a comment. I certainly doubt that it comes from any personal knowledge of Kavanaugh. One thing that it does indicate, is a bias against him. Whatever the reason for it, such 'lynch mob' motivations prove an unreasoned argument.